Hello again:

Health care is Obama's Waterloo. Afghanistan is ours. Frankly, considering that, I think a bit of dithering IS in order... What do you think he'll do? Will he withdraw, take the middle ground, or will he become a Nobel Peace Prize winning war time president?

But, before you decide, here's a little tidbit about the, oh so honorable General McCrystal - the one who wants ONLY 40,000 additional troops. He was in charge of the unit where Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire in Iraq. The general KNEW it was friendly fire, yet he covered it up when he wrote a recommendation for a medal for Tillman. When asked about it by a congressional panel investigating the incident, he lied about it again.

Is this the kind of guy we want in charge of OUR Waterloo?

excon

One thing we know about Obama: he is an ideologue. The crowd he cow-tows with isn't interested in US superiority, anywhere.

Hello again:

Health care is Obama's Waterloo. Afghanistan is ours.

excon

I think you have had many Waterloo's ex but none of them so devastating as the defeat of Napoleon. He lost an army and a nation.

Afghanistan will become an inconvenience, one more time when the force of US arms will not prevail. Overwhelming force is the only way the US prevails, anything less results in defeat. McChrystal like many before him has a plan and like many before him he protects the system. The military doesn't admit to friendly fire incidents easily any more than they admit to atrocities, but it is a well know fact that you stay well away from Americans in a fire fight.

Afghanistan is a disaster on many levels and the way out is to leave. The problem is how to extract yourselves without a massacre. Usually the only way to assure yourselves of that is overwhelming victory and pacification of the country. With a country that doesn't have the political will for victory it really doesn't matter whether the leaders military or otherwise have skeletons

Constitutionally which, if either, Afghanistan or expanded government interference in healthcare, is justified?

To me, national security is governments primary job. If Obama does not think that US involvement in Afghanistan is important to national securiity, then he should state that we will be out of there asap. If he thinks that victory / success in Afghanistan is important to national security then he either agrees with the general and applies this strategy, or he should let us know what other strategy would be successful, why, and apply that.

As to healthcare, what good is "universal healthcare," when 1] security is not ensured, and 2] how to cover more people with quality healthcare without increasing costs during an economic recession.

I don't think Obama has a clue on either situation, or the correct priorities.


G&P

Yup ;General McChrystal will get smeared like General Petraeus was when he proposed the Iraq surge. That's no surprise . It is no secret that Jon Krakauer is and was virulently opposed to both the Afghan and Iraqi wars .

Frankly, considering that, I think a bit of dithering IS in order... What do you think he'll do? Will he withdraw, take the middle ground, or will he become a Nobel Peace Prize winning war time president?

Regarding " dithering ";I think not ;an immediate decision is in order because if the decision is to surge ,the US will have the lull in combat that happens every winter there to deploy the additional troops before the spring.

I think the "commander in chief " will both dither and in the end split the difference which will not work . Then he will have the cover to say a surge doesn't work. I think if he doesn't approve the General's plan he should provide for the complete withdrawal of all NATO troops before Spring.


or will he become a Nobel Peace Prize winning war time president?

You mean like Teddy Roosevelt ?

I think the "commander in chief " will both dither and in the end split the difference which will not work . Then he will have the cover to say a surge doesn't work. I think if he doesn't approve the General's plan he should provide for the complete withdrawal of all NATO troops before Spring.

We now have our answer, he voted present (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_afghanistan).

To me, national security is governments primary job.Hello again, in:

To YOU, and to the other righty's...

However, it's not written anywhere. Our Constitution, which outlines the duties of government, doesn't say that at all. I've heard you righty's say on countless occasions, that the presidents FIRST job is to keep us safe... But, that's made up as well. In fact, if you want to know what the presidents FIRST obligation is, all you need to do is read his oath of office, which, by the way, is in the Constitution...

You may be surprised to learn that in his oath, he swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" NOT the nation, but the CONSTITUTION. If his job was to keep us safe, don't you think it would say that somewhere?

Plus, I also think you say the above so that you don't have to justify the cost of war, but you want government to justify the cost of EVERYTHING else...

The Constitutional FACT of the matter is, that health care, wars, the post office, all the way down the smallest of governmental activities, carry the SAME weight and responsibilities... Consequently, the costs of each program should demand the same accountability...

Now, YOU can support which program you like.. But to say that the primary job of government is security, is just plain not true... I'll be willing, however, to admit that I'm wrong, if you can show me WHERE in our documents your position is sustained.

excon

The name 'Barack' in Arabic means : "He who dithers" or "Hamlet" .

I am actually shocked that he considered all the options and could not come up with one that suited him.
I had heard earlier this week that he has agreed to the McChrystal request. Guess that report was wrong.

Time is wasting . It takes time to deploy and now is the time to do it while the winter lull begins.

Once he picks up that peace prize his decision will be clear. He wants to 'cut and run ' but he needs the political cover first. The delay ;and restrictive ROEs will further turn to public against the effort .Then he can make his move. Over in England the public is turning because they did not see it fit to provide their troops with air-cover.
Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe warned of helicopter shortage weeks before Afghanistan death | UK news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/31/rupert-thorneloe-helicopter-shortage-afghanistan)

And of course Obama's ambassador in Afghanistan retired Gen.Karl Eikenberry gave the President the cover he needed to delay.
Mr. President, no more troops | Cynthia Tucker (http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2009/11/12/mr-president-no-more-troops/?cxntfid=blogs_cynthia_tucker)

Eikenberry was last seen attending a peace vigil in Afghanistan. General McChrystal is reportedly furious over Eikenberry's cables to the President. Anyway you look at it;you have a bad situation when your two lead guys in the field fundamentally do not agree on a course of action.

Hello again, tom:

If memory serves, George W. Bush dithered on Iraq. He didn't take ANY of the recommendations that were on the table. Nope, he went his own way - and you loved it.

Now, Barack the ditherer is dithering, and you hate it.

You're right too, when we have our two top dudes arguing about the right thing to do...

Besides, why do you support our troops giving their lives for a drug dealing corrupt leader?? Sounds like something a liberal would do.

excon

I am not for the Afghan leader .I am for the people.

Yes President Bush considered all the options he was given and made the unpopular choice ;which turned out to be the right one.
I don't see this President making the right choice. I see him in over his head.

Hello again, tom:

If memory serves, George W. Bush dithered on Iraq. He didn't take ANY of the recommendations that were on the table. Nope, he went his own way - and you loved it.

Now, Barack the ditherer is dithering, and you hate it.

You're right too, when we have our two top dudes arguing about the right thing to do...

Besides, why do you support our troops giving their lives for a drug dealing corrupt leader??? Sounds like something a liberal would do.

excon

Oh, really?

I seem to remember several long threads here at AMHD in which we specifically stated that Bush should send more troops to Iraq... that we needed to actually FIGHT the war instead of trtying to build nations. We needed more troops and we needed to change the ROEs to allow the troops to do their jobs properly. I remember specifically saying any number of times that I though that Rummy had screwed up because he was trying to use technology to substitute for boots on the ground and we needed more troops. And every time I or Tom, or Speech, or good ol' Dennis (KINDJ), made this argument, you would argue about how messed up things were and how sending more troops would just be a waste. And when Patreus came up with his "surge strategy", we basically said that what he was proposing was what we had been saying for several years at that point.

In fact, we have been consistent across the board, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, both for Bush and for Obama.

And you have consistently been on the opposite side.

So please don't give us this bullsh!t about us having one opinion for Bush and another for Obama. It just ain't true, and there's plenty of evidence for it on the internet.

Elliot

I am not for the Afghan leader .I am for the people.Hello again, tom:

Notwithstanding your post, the people elected him. We either believe in democracy or we don't. If we stay, he's our guy for the near future.

It's my view, however, that we CANNOT continue to fight a war on HIS behalf. Or do you want to overthrow him and put in a puppet?? Riiiight. That'll work good for us...

excon

Notwithstanding your post, the people elected him.


By all accounts he stole the election .That is why even the myopic Obama demanded a run-off.

Hello again, tom:

Notwithstanding your post, the people elected him. We either believe in democracy or we don't. If we stay, he's our guy for the near future.

It's my view, however, that we CANNOT continue to fight a war on HIS behalf. Or do you want to overthrow him and put in a puppet??? Riiiight. That'll work good for us...

excon

There might be some doubt as to whether the people actually elected him, Ex, he was awarded to election on a default because his opponent didn't believe in the process.

You are correct, this dude doesn't deserve the protection of the free world, so no CIA overthrows, no puppets, this is what this guy is anyway. He is just a tribal leader who bubbled to the top, in the right place at the right time.

If I read you correctly you think the devil we know is better than the devil we don't know

There might be some doubt as to whether the people actually elected him. If I read you correctly you think the devil we know is better than the devil we don't knowHello again, clete:

There's PLENTY of doubt.. But our doubt changes NOTHING. He IS the Afghan president whether we like it or not. We either give up American lives in SUPPORT of his government, overthrow him, or leave.

I'll take door number #3.

excon

Hello again, clete:

I'll take door number #3.

excon

You and me both, mate, but it appears we are the only ones with the common sense to see it. As they say, common sense isn't very common.:D

Please direct me to the quote where candidate Obama was concerned about the corruption of Karzai . I don't think you can. During the campaign Afghanistan was the "necessary war" .
Back then candidate Obama promised he'd win the war because it was the "central front" in the war on terror.
He even wrote in his essay in 'Foreign Affairs ' that

We must refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the central front in our war against al Qaeda -- so that we are confronting terrorists where their roots run deepest. Success in Afghanistan is still possible, but only if we act quickly, judiciously, and decisively.
Renewing American Leadership (http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/153/26336.html)

In fact;back then that was the meme of the entire left .

But now quickness ,decisiveness are just words not part of his vocabulary.

In fact;back then that was the meme of the entire left .

But now quickness ,decisiveness are just words not part of his vocabulary.Hello again, tom:

You said the words correctly "back then". Here's two more words that you righty's don't understand either: things change.

excon

You said the words correctly "back then". Here's two more words that you righty's don't understand either: things change.

Seems I recall tom has mentioned many times that the realities met after being sworn in clashed with Obama's campaign rhetoric. But tell me, what changed from the time Obama announced his intentions last spring to the time his commander offered his solution? Did McChrystal miss those changes and offer up an irrelevant plan? The biggest change has been in Obama from decisiveness on Afghanistan to waffling.

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know what happened, exactly. Maybe, in the year since the campaign, the country grew tired. Maybe, during that year, it started to look more like Vietnam. But, something DID happen. The year was not VOID of events.

Your thinking DOES mirror a neocon ideology, though. Once you start a war, you forge on ahead no matter what. In fact, it makes NO difference how the situation changes, because as an example, you'll say that we need to stay, if only to honor the last guy that died. Which, of course, is a pretty stupid reason to continue a war.

excon

I don't know what happened, exactly. Maybe, in the year since the campaign, the country grew tired. Maybe, during that year, it started to look more like Vietnam. But, something DID happen. The year was not VOID of events.

Nice deflection.


Your thinking DOES mirror a neocon ideology, though. Once you start a war, you forge on ahead no matter what. In fact, it makes NO difference how the situation changes, because as an example, you'll say that we need to stay, if only to honor the last guy that died. Which, of course, is a pretty stupid reason to continue a war.

I think the ideology is pretty simple, if you're going to fight a war fight it to win it. Anything else is "pretty stupid."

Your thinking DOES mirror a neocon ideology, though. Once you start a war, you forge on ahead no matter what. In fact, it makes NO difference how the situation changes,

Actually the McChrystal plan represents a significant change in strategy. The other thing that changed was the President's determination. What that indicates is a commander not ready for prime time. Heck ;even Evita predicted that last year.

I think the ideology is pretty simple, if you're going to fight a war fight it to win it. Anything else is "pretty stupid."Hello again, Steve:

You, inadvertently, pointed out yet another reason why things have changed.

Let me use myself as an example. The Wolverine's memory is short, but you haven't exhibited the same malady... I'm not anti war. I'm actually a big footprint guy, if you remember. I, too, thought Afghanistan was the "right war". I don't carry water for ANY politician.

Yet, as astute as I am, during the ensuing year, I learned MORE about the topography of Afghanistan. I learned MORE about WHO the insurgents are. I learned more about our mission, or lack thereof. I learned more about our exit strategy, or the lack thereof. I learned that the NEW regime IS corrupt. I learned that Karzi ISN'T going to help us. I learned that every victory we won over the last 8 years was only temporary, because we had no intention to HOLD the ground we won.

Most importantly, I learned what you learned - that in order to win, even if we can, is going to take a minimum of 500,000 troops, and that might not be enough... Anything short of that is pretty stupid, I agree.

Given that LOTS has changed, if only in my mind, the war went from the "good war", to one we'd better exit from.

excon

PS> (edited) Let me just add this. One of the reasons you think we need to stay is because you think the Taliban will let Al Quaida back in... I don't think the Taliban is stupid. I don't think they want to risk more drones. I think they'll keep Al Quaida out. If they don't, I think we can bomb their training bases with drones. If they don't build training bases, then what does it matter that they go back?

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know what happened, exactly.


You should have just stopped there... at least it would have been intellectually honest.


Maybe, in the year since the campaign, the country grew tired. Maybe, during that year, it started to look more like Vietnam.

Uh huh... in the past year the country grew tired of Afghanistan and came to see Afghanistan as another Vietnam... while at the same time becoming more supportive of Iraq. Yeah... that makes sense. NOT!!


But, something DID happen. The year was not VOID of events.

Yep. Obama got elected and no longer has to pay lip service to the concept of protecting the country in his rhetorric.


Your thinking DOES mirror a neocon ideology, though. Once you start a war, you forge on ahead no matter what. In fact, it makes NO difference how the situation changes, because as an example, you'll say that we need to stay, if only to honor the last guy that died. Which, of course, is a pretty stupid reason to continue a war.

Excon

As opposed to your loony-lib ideology which says that American can never win any war, because every war is another Vietnam, and America is evil anyway and deserves to lose.

If forced to choose between the two, I'll take the ideology that you have labeled as "neo-con" but which is just simply a possitive attitude toward national security. You can stick to your defeatism and self-hatred toward America if you prefer.

Elliot

You can stick to your defeatism and self-hatred toward America if you prefer.Hello again, Elliot:

And, YOU spilled your blood defending this country WHERE?? Nahh. You and your buddy war mongers like vice had OTHER things to do.

I understand. Truly, I do.

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

And, YOU spilled your blood defending this country WHERE???? Nahh. You and your buddy war mongers like vice had OTHER things to do.

I understand. Truly, I do.

excon

And which war to defend the USA have you defended? What action was "the right war"? Which action have you supported without bashing the troops and their abilities? Which war that we have been involved in are we not "losing"?

Fact is, excon, since Vietnam you haven't been able to support any action the US military has taken, because you don't really believe that the USA deserves to be defended. You don't think that there is an war we can or should win. Iraq is still a screwup according to you, despite the fact that every military leader and almost every political leader (including Obama) has admitted that the surge was a massive success. Afghanistan is a major failure too, despite the fact that we have had incredibly low casualties and haven't lost a battle yet. We're losing, and nothing can convince you otherwise.

Elliot

"Good morning. Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review that I ordered as soon as I took office.

Read the rest of this here
Obama's Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, March 2009 - Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/publication/18952/)

This was the point that the President supposedly concluded his policy review of Afghanistan . Everything since then is dithering .

This was the point that the President supposedly concluded his policy review of Afghanistan . Everything since then is dithering .Hello again, tom:

Just before the surge, when we were getting our a$$'s handed to us, Bush concluded SEVERAL policy reviews about Iraq including one with LOTS of high powered dudes like James Baker. He dithered. The he dithered some more before he came up with the surge.

In fact, during the entire conduct of the war, I'm sure he had LOTS, of policy reviews about Iraq, and then he had some more. Now, I don't know if he dithered, but for sure MOST of his decisions during that time were WRONG. I simply suggest that maybe, just MAYBE if he dithered, 4,000 of our young soldiers might be alive.

As a matter of fact, the worst decisions this country has ever made, were made in haste.

excon

"Good morning. Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. .

If only that were true!

Hello again, Steve:

You, inadvertently, pointed out yet another reason why things have changed.

Lemme use myself as an example. The Wolverine's memory is short, but you haven't exhibited the same malady... I'm not anti war. I'm actually a big footprint guy, if you remember. I, too, thought Afghanistan was the "right war". I don't carry water for ANY politician.

Yet, as astute as I am, during the ensuing year, I learned MORE about the topography of Afghanistan. I learned MORE about WHO the insurgents are. I learned more about our mission, or lack thereof. I learned more about our exit strategy, or the lack thereof. I learned that the NEW regime IS corrupt. I learned that Karzi ISN'T going to help us. I learned that every victory we won over the last 8 years was only temporary, because we had no intention to HOLD the ground we won.

Most importantly, I learned what you learned - that in order to win, even if we can, is gonna take a minimum of 500,000 troops, and that might not be enough... Anything short of that is pretty stupid, I agree.

Given that LOTS has changed, if only in my mind, the war went from the "good war", to one we'd better exit from.

excon

PS> (edited) Lemme just add this. One of the reasons you think we need to stay is because you think the Taliban will let Al Quaida back in... I don't think the Taliban is stupid. I don't think they want to risk more drones. I think they'll keep Al Quaida out. If they don't, I think we can bomb their training bases with drones. If they don't build training bases, then what does it matter that they go back?

Good points and I agree with the PS solution. They should have already have known the geography, the history, the culture and its peoples prior to going in.


G&P


G&P

Good points and I agree with the PS solution. They should have already have known the geography, the history, the culture and its peoples prior to going in.




PS> (edited) Let me just add this. One of the reasons you think we need to stay is because you think the Taliban will let Al Quaida back in... I don't think the Taliban is stupid. I don't think they want to risk more drones. I think they'll keep Al Quaida out. If they don't, I think we can bomb their training bases with drones. If they don't build training bases, then what does it matter that they go back?

Let's recap a little here. The Taliban allowed Al Qaeda in because Al Qaeda were helping them in their fight against the Northern Alliance, that is the other afghans, in their civil war. Al Qaeda are still helping them today, albeit there are fewer AQ fighters maybe 100.

It matters that AQ don't have a base at all, but as they no doubt have one in Pakistan all this chasing terrorists around Afghanistan is a lot of political grandstanding, reassuring the "good folks" back home "our boys are keeping them safe". This lie was exposed in the last week with a Muslim terrorist hiding in the US military. There is a similar grandstanding effort taking place on the other side of the border

The Taliban unfortunately are not only a threat to Afghanistan, a place that matters little, but they are also a threat to Pakistan, an unstable nation with a nuclear arsenal. Without the Afghanistan base there will be no drones bombing the Taliban in Pakistan. So the fight goes on because of fear and this fight fuels the problem, because the Taliban feel threatened by enemies on two sides, the US in the west and Pakistan in the east. Pakistan gave the Taliban the opportunity to take over Afghanistan in the first place and endorsed them, now they bite the hand that feeds them.

So as much as I think things would settle down if the US pulled out of Afghanistan they won't do it because of fear that Al Qaeda will rise again and destablise Pakistan.